I like the spin on this. Sounds like something that could be very useful.
I must note, however, some phrases that set off my bullshit detector.
>SEA participants were 19 times more likely than eligible non-participants to be self-employed
Either I'm missing something or this says that people who are in a self-employed assistance plan are likely to be self-employed. Perhaps this is an editing error?
>In Oregon, nearly half of the successful SEA entrepreneurs have each created an average of 2.63 new jobs
Ok, but what kind of filter does "successful SEA entrepreneurs" imply? 1 in 100? 20%? Once again, the language is loose and circular.
Money is not an answer to everything. In fact, funding at high levels can be the worst thing ever to happen to a good team in a startup. At small levels, like this, it perhaps can make a big difference. Perhaps.
There is a great big giant humongous gap between something that sounds good in an editorial and something that actually does something useful. I'd want a lot more data on this before passing judgment one way or another.
With regards to the "more likely … to be self-employed": I think the problem is that "eligible non-participants" is kind of vague. If we take it to mean "people who tried to start their own business without help from the program," it makes more sense — the people in the program managed to stick with it 19 times more often than people who had to fully bootstrap their business.
I must note, however, some phrases that set off my bullshit detector.
>SEA participants were 19 times more likely than eligible non-participants to be self-employed
Either I'm missing something or this says that people who are in a self-employed assistance plan are likely to be self-employed. Perhaps this is an editing error?
>In Oregon, nearly half of the successful SEA entrepreneurs have each created an average of 2.63 new jobs
Ok, but what kind of filter does "successful SEA entrepreneurs" imply? 1 in 100? 20%? Once again, the language is loose and circular.
Money is not an answer to everything. In fact, funding at high levels can be the worst thing ever to happen to a good team in a startup. At small levels, like this, it perhaps can make a big difference. Perhaps.
There is a great big giant humongous gap between something that sounds good in an editorial and something that actually does something useful. I'd want a lot more data on this before passing judgment one way or another.